Type of Formal Framework

Description This comment was shared by Ignacio Serrano through the mailing list: In my opinion, the controlled vocabulary of property "Type (dct:type)" should not be limited to the Resource Types Named Authority Lists if one provider wants to conform to the AP. If I am not wrong, Resource Types NAL could be used for European based law, and ELI states that "types of legislation are specific for each jurisdiction". For example, the simple term "Law" is not included in this NAL. In fact, there is an initiative here in Spain (and I think that in other MS as well) related to the ELI, which one of its goals is to define a controlled vocabulary for the types of legislation of our jurisdiction.

Component

Documentation

Category

improvement

Comments

Fri, 28/07/2017 - 12:01

The CPSV-AP proposes to use the Resource Types Named Authority Lists as controlled vocabulary for the property Type of a Formal Framework. However, The CPSV-AP only proposes the listed controlled vocabularies to be used, it does not states them as mandatory. Therefore, any other list of values could be used for this property.

Mon, 31/07/2017 - 11:52

From your comments on this and other issues, it is now clear to me that the use of the vocabularies of section 4 is completely optional.   However, I believe that a clarification may then be introduced in section 6.1, as it explicitly states that a provider MUST ... "not use terms from other controlled vocabularies instead of ones defined in this specification (section 4).". My original misunderstanding comes from this sentence.

Wed, 23/08/2017 - 07:50

Hi Ignacio,

 

Thanks for your comments. To make it more clear that the recommended controlled vocabularies are not mandatory, my suggestion would be to add a clarification in section 6.1:

"A conforming implementation of the Core Public Service Application Profile may include terms from recommended controlled vocabularies for the corresponding properties, as listed in section 4."

 

Also, we will slightly update the text in section 4, so it is clear that the proposed controlled vocabularies are not mandatory, and that other controlled vocabularies which are more suitable or tailored to the national context, may be used, or the recommended controlled can be adapted/extended to your own needs.

 

Finally, I would like to encourage you, and the other people from the working group to share any controlled vocabularies (code lists, taxonomies...) that you have or are working on in your context, which can be useful in the context of CPSV-AP, or which are interesting to share with the community. Would it be possible to already share the work on a defining a controlled vocabulary for types of legislation in the context of ELI?

 

Thanks!

Wed, 23/08/2017 - 08:20

In Flanders, Belgium, we are working on a project to publish local government decisions. For this we align to ELI and some of the ISA core vocabularies. We haven't defined a list of types of legislation yet, but I'd like to remark there is currently no alignment between CPSV-AP (FormalFramework) and the legislation classes defined by ELI (LegalExpression and LegalResource). I contacted ELI about this, and they answered they would look into this for the next ELI version.

Fri, 08/09/2017 - 10:09

Attached to this comment you could find the types of legislation that are being defined in Spain in the context of ELI initiative. Please, take into consideration that this work is still in progress and this information corresponds to the first draft.

Login or create an account to comment.